Some quotations related to the case of Joe Murphy, Librarian:
From librarian Meredith Farkas:
It’s been no secret among many women (and some men) who attend and speak at conferences like Internet Librarian and Computers in Libraries that Joe Murphy has a reputation for using these conferences as his own personal meat markets. Whether it’s true or not, I don’t know. I’ve known these allegations since before 2010, which was when I had the privilege of attending a group dinner with him.
He didn’t sexually harass anyone at the table that evening, but his behavior was entitled, cocky, and rude. He barely let anyone else get a word in edgewise because apparently what he had to say (in a group with some pretty freaking illustrious people) was more important than what anyone else had to say. The host of the dinner apologized to me afterwards and said he had no idea what this guy was like. And that was the problem. This information clearly wasn’t getting to the people who needed it most; particularly the people who invited him to speak at conferences. For me, it only cemented the fact that it’s a man’s world (even in our female-dominated profession) and men can continue to get away with and profit from offering more flash than substance and behaving badly.
From librarian Barbara Fister:
A Canadian librarian, along with one who lives in the American Midwest, are being sued in Canada for $1.25 million by an American librarian named Joe Murphy, who I have never met but who is fairly well known as a conference speaker. He’s also well known because he’s one of those conference speakers who women warn one another about. This kind of thing surprises some people who can’t imagine that a female-dominated profession like mine has a harassment problem, but it does, and a lot of us got an education about how widespread it is when the American Library Association passed a code of conduct, which I support whole-heartedly. […]
I don’t know Joe Murphy and all I knew about him was his reputation, which the lawsuit claims has been damaged by Rabey and de jesus, even though that damage actually happened long before they put anything in writing. (And if you think we shouldn’t talk about this because he’s innocent until proven guilty, remember this is not a criminal case and he is not a defendant, as de jesus has so lucidly explained.) It could be that he has been unfairly maligned for the past few years. But in a profession that’s all about the value of sharing information and protecting access to multiple perspectives, this isn’t how you defend your reputation. You engage. You discuss. You listen. You try to figure stuff out. You don’t attempt to silence people with punitive legal actions. If you do, you are doing it wrong.
From librarian Jenica Rogers:
(Except, in the interests of full disclosure, I have met Joe, and have been “nice shirt”ed by him, and as a woman who is loosely in his same age-and-career-path cohort, I was warned by other women about being alone with him long before Rabey and de jesus started talking about it on the internet.)
Joe Murphy’s strategy of discrediting Rabey and de jesus and suing them into silence has a fatal flaw.
No Canadian judge has the power to change the fact that many people have been telling each other about their experiences with Joe Murphy.
No Canadian legal ruling can compel people to see Joe Murphy in the way he wants to be seen rather than in the way they see him.
If a Canadian judge rules that “predator” was the wrong word to use, then other words will be found.
Someone with even a basic understanding of social media would know all this.